I wouldn't have thought of this idea. Which, in itself, makes me like it, but only tentatively.
It seems like the rationalist thing to do would be to suspend judgment, and see how it works in the few areas where its being tried. Don't forget to check the possible negative incentives noted already, but don't prejudge the issue either.
Without prejudging the merits of the program itself, the best argument I can think of against it is that the economy is a wreck and there is no level of government that can afford to initiate new costly programs of any kind. For that reason alone, I as a voter would prefer not to start any programs like this in any jurisdiction in which I have to pay taxes until its value is demonstrated somewhere else.
The problem with this is that as long as it's uncommon, people won't rely on it. They're unlikely to get accepted to a wet house. If it becomes standard, they will.
"Wet houses"-- subsidized housing for alcoholics (they need to get most of their own money for alcohol, but their other expenses are covered) might actually be a good idea. It's cheaper than trying to get them to stop drinking, arguably kinder than trying to get people to take on a very hard task that they aren't interested in, and leads to less collateral damage than having alcoholics couch-surfing or living on the street.
Utilitarians, what do you think?