some personal injury connected with the alleged unconstitutional act. A litigant cannot claim standing to challenge the actions of government based only on his status as a citizen. Alons, 698 N.W.2d at 865. In Hurd, the citizen-taxpayer litigants at least established they were users of the government resource allegedly subject to damage by inaction of the county. 297 N.W.2d at 358. The user status of the litigants is what linked them to the affected building so as to establish the necessary individual injury to support standing. A general interest shared by all citizens in making sure government acts legally is normally insufficient to support standing without such a link. See United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 179-80, 94 S.Ct. 2940, 2948, 41 L.Ed.2d 678, 689-90 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, a taxpayer acquires standing by
holding constitutional a tax on a private citizens interest in housing on government property received as part of the private citizens compensation holding citizens lacked standing to challenge statute when all citizens affected in the same way holding that a county ordinance conflicted with state laws and was invalid as applied to all citizens holding that sovereign immunity barred a federal question suit against a state brought by one of its own citizens even though the text of the eleventh amendment only addresses suits brought by citizens of another state holding state immune from suit brought by its own citizens