Some things to think about:
1) Are we encouraging people to change lands more frequently then? I always thought most players frowned upon this.
2) I feel that either the access to restricted locations matters very much (in which case land loyalty should not be a measure) or not (wishpoint, but not the active day requirements).
3) There are several ways to do "custom" wishes.
A) A wishpoint, plus approval of some power such as Mur, Chewett, the land leader, alliance heads, etc. One of the above, two of the above, whatever...
B) A sliding scale from 1 wishpoint with approval of land leader, to X wishpoints for no-questions asked grant
C) Something like the above, but on a case by case basis, instead of preannounced requirements
D) 1 wishpoint with X land loyalty, or X wishpoints without requisite land loyalty
4) Should land loyalty be considered by the citizenry of the land (influencing things like how the leadership distributes alliance roles, stock from land treasuries, etcetera), the land itself (lower AP costs, access to different locations, other influences), or both? This is tricky. The land does already to a degree and the citizenry does too, but often less so then the land itself (which makes sense because land loyalty only measures the presence of activity per day, not its overall magnitude), but if the land is in some sense separate than its people, then perhaps there needs to be other ways to gain land loyalty than the three step process of 1) being granted citizenship, 2) avoid being excommunicated, and 3) logging in each day.