They should have gone with hovertoasters...
People will pay to fund anything thrown on kickstarter, so long as it makes sufficiently sensationalist claims. It's an interesting project, but the hoverboard itself seems unlikely to ever become an actual product.
Compared to a simple skateboard, it's deficient in practically every way. Its biggest issue is that it can only function on certain metal surfaces, whereas the main draw of the fictional hoverboard that it's trying to play off of was that it could operate smoothly over any type of surface. The chances of there ever being specially designed copper-plated skate parks to use them in seem incredibly slim. It also appears to be much heavier and far less maneuverable than a skateboard. They also seem to have conveniently silenced the horrible ear-piercing screeching noise it makes during operation in their kickstarter videos. What's the point of a hoverboard if it's clearly worse in every way then a piece of wood with wheels on it?
As for using it to stabilize buildings, I can't see how hovering a building would work any better than existing Earthquake-proofing techniques used in modern structures, and it would probably just increase the potential for failure. And that's assuming you can even reliably hover a skyscraper over its foundation. There's probably some use for their electromagnets somewhere, but they don't seem to have any clear idea of what that might be.
Then there's this quote from their "Will it ever be affordable" question...
"Look at computers - only 15 years ago memory cost around $100 per Gigabyte; now its around $.01!"
What kind of memory are they talking about? RAM was around $1000 per GB 15 years ago, and is around $10 per GB now, while hard drives were around $20 per GB, and are now around $0.04 per GB. Neither of those add up to anywhere near the reduction in price they suggested for that time frame. And of course, their product isn't even the kind to benefit from cost-reduction due to miniaturization, making it a terrible analogy.